Ahem. Didn't harm Australia all them years ago to accept criminals and undesirables. Maybe we're doing the right thing after all
No, but didn't they eventually take over the country from the indigenous aboriginals?
A lesson to be learnt?
No, but didn't they eventually take over the country from the indigenous aboriginals?
A lesson to be learnt?
Sponsored Links
B
Big Tone
Er, that hit me like a wet fish in the face JB. It's not often I'm lost for words. I'd call that post of the thread I think. Same thing happened in North America. Indiginous population become second class citizens.
Rogue.......?
Rogue.......?
Er, that hit me like a wet fish in the face JB. It's not often I'm lost for words. I'd call that post of the thread I think. Same thing happened in North America. Indiginous population become second class citizens.
"But who are the indigenous people? There is no such thing!"
Mantra of the Notting Hill Set.
Let's draw a line - the "indigenous" are the ones who could think for themselves, rather than grub around in the filth for their next meal, and thank their lords and masters for the privilege
B
Big Tone
So let's try and walk into, (invade), Dubai with drink & homos and tell them, the "Indiginous population", they weren't there first?
How far, and how much human history, do you go back to before you can claim it yours? What is anyones? (I consider myself a "citizen of the world").
Does Putin have a point about Ukraine? (Get back in the can you worms). Soz. Def a separate topic!
How far, and how much human history, do you go back to before you can claim it yours? What is anyones? (I consider myself a "citizen of the world").
Does Putin have a point about Ukraine? (Get back in the can you worms). Soz. Def a separate topic!
Sponsored Links
You lot need zapping with my muslamic ray gun
Er, that hit me like a wet fish in the face JB. It's not often I'm lost for words. I'd call that post of the thread I think. Same thing happened in North America. Indiginous population become second class citizens.
"But who are the indigenous people? There is no such thing!"
Mantra of the Notting Hill Set.
Let's draw a line - the "indigenous" are the ones who could think for themselves, rather than grub around in the filth for their next meal, and thank their lords and masters for the privilege
Debatable, I know, but perhaps we could go back to the generation which was the last to defend this country's freedom: my father's generation.
Would you include all allied countries
B
Big Tone
As I was surfacing this morning I also wondered whether the recent anti-discrimination change to car insurance was positive action. You see, I think it was wrong!
If women are safer drivers, which is in fact the case, then why shouldn’t they enjoy a better premium? I think it was sexist towrds women; it certainly did them no favour.
I suspect RH will be in the camp it was the right thing to do and constitutes PA, but for me it isn’t ‘telling it as it is’ again.
If women are safer drivers, which is in fact the case, then why shouldn’t they enjoy a better premium? I think it was sexist towrds women; it certainly did them no favour.
I suspect RH will be in the camp it was the right thing to do and constitutes PA, but for me it isn’t ‘telling it as it is’ again.
R
RogueHanger
This is going to be one of my few posts today 'cos I'm incommunicado for over 24 hours (travelling). Also, please excuse any typo errors 'cos I aint got time to check my typing and I've always evaded the spiel chequer.
So you may have to do some surmising if my mucking fords are wixed up.
So to address a few comments in one post.
BT, re insurance for women, I agree it is dis-advantageous for women, but sometime PA can be disadvantageous for some. I see the holistic result as positive. Although, accepted it's difficult to see a holistic positive result in that example.
Jockscott, a reasonable comment, for once, about PA being divisive. And this also takes into account Brigadier's comment about beneficial to all, question mark.
However, discrimination is divisive. (I'm now using the terms as defined by EHRC, i.e. PA as lawful, and discrimination as illegal. Thus I've completely dropped the term Positive Discrimination, for clarity and less typing)
We've seen the damage that can be done to society when ethnic minorities perceive themselves as being disadvantaged. We can extend that argument to discuss why ethnic minorities should bother to gain skills, education, qualifications, etc, if there is no or little hope of them being able to secure a position.
Thus the lesser or no-skilled positions will be dominated by ethnic minorities.
And the higher, qualified, skilled positions will be dominated by the indigenous population.
Therefore, I see PA as being an inclusive policy, not a divisive policy.
Discrimination is a divisive policy with potential catastrophioc results.
PA may sometimes create a degree of disgruntlement, but not in the same collective direction that discrimination can/will create.
Additionally, to address the Rooney Rule shortcomings.
If we see the football clubs as an organisation, we may see that ethnic moinorities are well repesented, but only in the player category, not in the coach capacity.
We have to look at the bigger picture, as a whole, to see that it's the industry that reflects the poor representation of ethnic minority coaches.
NB, micilin, this is not a contender for the longest post!
So you may have to do some surmising if my mucking fords are wixed up.
So to address a few comments in one post.
BT, re insurance for women, I agree it is dis-advantageous for women, but sometime PA can be disadvantageous for some. I see the holistic result as positive. Although, accepted it's difficult to see a holistic positive result in that example.
Jockscott, a reasonable comment, for once, about PA being divisive. And this also takes into account Brigadier's comment about beneficial to all, question mark.
However, discrimination is divisive. (I'm now using the terms as defined by EHRC, i.e. PA as lawful, and discrimination as illegal. Thus I've completely dropped the term Positive Discrimination, for clarity and less typing)
We've seen the damage that can be done to society when ethnic minorities perceive themselves as being disadvantaged. We can extend that argument to discuss why ethnic minorities should bother to gain skills, education, qualifications, etc, if there is no or little hope of them being able to secure a position.
Thus the lesser or no-skilled positions will be dominated by ethnic minorities.
And the higher, qualified, skilled positions will be dominated by the indigenous population.
Therefore, I see PA as being an inclusive policy, not a divisive policy.
Discrimination is a divisive policy with potential catastrophioc results.
PA may sometimes create a degree of disgruntlement, but not in the same collective direction that discrimination can/will create.
Additionally, to address the Rooney Rule shortcomings.
If we see the football clubs as an organisation, we may see that ethnic moinorities are well repesented, but only in the player category, not in the coach capacity.
We have to look at the bigger picture, as a whole, to see that it's the industry that reflects the poor representation of ethnic minority coaches.
NB, micilin, this is not a contender for the longest post!
R
RogueHanger
No, but didn't they eventually take over the country from the indigenous aboriginals?
A lesson to be learnt?
Absolutely not a lesson to be learnt.
It was racism that allowed the destruction, or enslavement, of the indigenous population.
And I mean racism in its true interpretation, i.e. a belief in superiority of one race over another.
It took Soth Africa until 1990's to shake off that racism.
As I was surfacing this morning I also wondered whether the recent anti-discrimination change to car insurance was positive action. You see, I think it was wrong!
If women are safer drivers, which is in fact the case, then why shouldn’t they enjoy a better premium? I think it was sexist towrds women; it certainly did them no favour.
I suspect RH will be in the camp it was the right thing to do and constitutes PA, but for me it isn’t ‘telling it as it is’ again.
Minor point, but women cost less to insure, but are not necessarily, safer drivers. They actually have more accidents per mile than men, but their accidents are of lower severity and they drive fewer miles per year than men.
B
Big Tone
Yes Cajar, now you mention it I have heard that somewhere before too. But the point stands I think, that despite women having more 'dinks', if statistically they are costing us less, for whatever reason, then shouldn't they benefit in our free market society?
I'm confused over this actually and TBH, because it discriminates against young men who are good. I'm beginning to think you just can't win either way and that, whoever said it earlier, someone is always going to lose out.
Safe journey RH. I'm out and about all day too...
I'm confused over this actually and TBH, because it discriminates against young men who are good. I'm beginning to think you just can't win either way and that, whoever said it earlier, someone is always going to lose out.
Safe journey RH. I'm out and about all day too...
D
Deleted member 63160
Do you think the abbo's were equal in every way? I think the whites that ultimately took over Aus were more advanced technically. Does that make me racist? A boatload of trained marines with guns are far superior to tribe of people still living in mud huts and grubbuing around in the dirt for food, when it comes to combat skills. Am I racist for noticing this? Or anm I just stating a plain fact?
I don't actually think their premiums should be cheaper because it's discrimination, no more so than I think it would be fair to discriminate against a job candidate because she is female, based on the data that say women spend less time at work, and often take time out to start a family. Who is to say that every women is the same and should be disadvantaged because of the gender she cannot change (mostly). Asian drivers have a bad stereotype so I'll use that as an example, if a insurance companies charged more because one was Asian, it would be a clear case of discrimination, so why did gender discrimination perpetuate for so long in the insurance industry.
Sponsored Links
